What You Need to Know: Thorium Nuclear Power

think im addicted to these videos

0:27 The Basic Idea 💡 4:06 Why Bother Doing This? 11:42 27 Days 12:40 Why Not Bother

I enjoyed watching it again.

I do want to extend my gratitude providing this information to the public. Even if, we cannot effectively solve the chemical process of thorium breeders, this research should not be buried. Nuclear research has been way too focused on uranium, and we need to be exploring all facets of nuclear research. Even if the end result comes to making existing nuclear reactors more efficient.

A civilization is great when old men plant trees they will never sit in the shade of.

The thorium breeder cycle in a molten fluoride salt reactor is advantageous because it's the only breeder cycle that can be implemented using thermal neutrons. You can't do this with a U238 -> Pu239 breeder cycle. This allows smaller reactors to be built, as your fissile inventory can be much smaller. From an economic standpoint, this would enable many places in the world to have a reliable, dense energy source.

Finally!!!! An information I can trust about thorium!

Thorium reactors can be used to devour current nuclear reactor waste and convert that to useable energy. Indeed, Thorium reactors will use up over 97% (if memory serves me) of its fuel whereas current Uranium based fuels only utilizes 0.6% and the rest goes into the trash heap. Still, like you said, we'll never run out of Uranium and a lot of the waste may be recycled, but still, Thorium reactors is just the better way to make power, but of course more research has to be done since the work done by Oakridge Labs back in the late 60s/early 70s has to all be be redone, unfortunately (thanks Nixon). :)

I don’t think you fully appreciate the value of the passive safety of Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs). The costs of todays nuclear power is approximately 10X that of the 1960s (corrected for inflation). Regulatory Compliance is a big reason why. It could be argued that regulatory compliance is the sole reason why. Today’s Light Water Reactors (LWRs) are safe, but that safety comes with huge costs due to systems and testing to ensure that safety (as per the regulations). The big accident worry of an LWR is the “Loss of Coolant Accident” (LOCA). Water does double duty in an LWR. It is the coolant and the moderator. It is also under pressure (about 100+ atmospheres) and heated to relatively high temperatures (~300 C). If there is any breach in the cooling system, the water will escape, flash to steam and the core, which is expected to be under water, will no longer be under water. Fission will stop, but the decay heat will remain. With no water flowing through the core, the core will melt. This is a meltdown. This will release the highly radioactive fission products. This is a bad accident. There are systems in place to make sure this doesn’t happen. Pumps to move water onto the core. Backups to these pumps. A containment building large enough to capture all the steam that would be produce if the cooling system was breached. Diesel Generators to power the pumps if there is a loss of Grid power. Batteries to power the pumps if the Diesel Generators Fail. Instrumentation to monitor all these systems, and paper trails of documentation to record and communicate everything that ever happens to the authorities. All of these systems dominate the costs of the power plant. Now, compare that with an MSR. A “meltdown” cannot happen! The core is already in a molten state. The analog would be a “boil over”. But Molten Salts do not boil until extremely high temperatures (1200 C). There is no water under pressure to flash to steam in the MSR. The pressure of the core is essentially at atmospheric pressure (plus some pump pressure), nothing at 100+ atmospheres. If the reactor core is breached, it will leak salt that will solidify. The system drains into drain tanks where fission stops, but decay heat continues. However the salt can tolerate much higher temperatures than water, particularly at atmospheric pressure. So, the salt will be able to passively cool in the drain tank. No Herculean effort to keep water on the core and circulating is required. A containment building could be made MUCH smaller (and cheaper). The bottom line is that the cost of any Nuclear Power generating system is very much driven by the INHERENT safety aspects of the reactor design. MSRs are MUCH safer by INHERENT design. If we had NRC regulations in place for MSRs that are much easier (lower cost) to comply with (because these regulations efficiently reflect the MSRs inherent safety advantages) MSRs could be constructed and operated at a much lower cost. The 10X cost increase that has occurred over the years for LWRs could be reduced or eliminated with MSRs. MSRs might even be able to compete with $11 per barrel oil! If energy was this low cost to produce, we can produce MUCH more energy! With energy this abundant we can solve many of the worlds resource limitation problems! The potential advantages of MSRs are stunningly HUGE!

I needed this balanced, well-informed presentation. My sincere thanks.

If I understand the Thorium reactor correctly, then they are actually able to burn reactor waste from the traditional nuclear reactors. And that might make them an economic viable option for waste management.

You are such a great teacher , sir

Whish I had a lecturer as good as you when I was at uni. Love your videos keep them coming.

I'd say there are a few more advantages of a MSR (especially the LFTR design). For example, the higher temperature of the molten salt offers safety features beyond just the passive freeze plug capability. Unlike water, you don't need very high pressure to keep it from boiling; it can operate at lower pressure than a LWR. And since the fuel is distributed as a fluid, as temperature rises thermal expansion reduces reactivity (passively). The higher temperature also means high thermal efficiency. With a MSR you also don't have the same concern with hydrogen gas build up and potential hydrogen explosions, when comparing with a LWR. A MSR can also be refueled without shutting down the reactor, and doesn't require (very costly) solid fuel manufacture. And there's no xenon poisoning. That's probably just scratching the surface. I understand the economic argument, but I can't help think it's a huge pity. I think the relative simplicity and especially the obvious safety advantages a MSR/LFTR design offers should justify R&D to overcome remaining obstacles. Public perception could make a difference in the economic sphere (not changing the economic cost, but shifting the willingness to pay those costs). Personally, I'd rather advocate for what I think is the best technology in the hopes of shifting both public and government perceptions about nuclear power, its safety (or potential safety), and the best path forward. Futile? Perhaps. Worth advocating? I think so. I'd say you're probably correct that it's more likely to be a long term goal in the current context, but pushing to shorten that lead time (and maybe adjust some of the variables in the current context) can only help, in my opinion.

15:17 - Exactly .... totally brilliant. I am so tired of people who don't know what they are talking about raving about "thorium" and "molten salt" and how great it would be. IllinoisEnergyProf gives us facts and context to understand them. Thank you very much Prof. Rusic.

I really appreciate quality presentations like this, thank you. Difficult material explained well about a topic like this can help open minds. I think Thorium reactors are certainly worth exploring as experiments in some level even if we don't end up scaling production. What we could learn may well be worth the cost even if Thorium itself remains a novelty. I would love a video going into more detail about the economics of reactor construction/operation and ways we could improve costs without taking short cuts on safety (maybe producing more, smaller megawatt reactors and thus scaling production?). Nuclear power will be needed more than ever if we are serious about environmental progress (renewables don't strike me as a serious effort).

Please consider adding to your WHY BOTHER the potential benefits of MSR: 1, Safety associated with low pressure salt coolant 2. Much longer thermal response and the potential for dumping the fuel into a safe configuration. I was involved in the TMI accident from the day it happened to cleanup and hope you guys give the safety advantages as serious look. 3. The tremendous potential benefit of higher temperatures- greater efficiency, use of downstream process - desalination desalination, drying processes, bottoming cycles... There are still questions, but I hope you seriously look at what Weinberg and those guys pulled out of the nuclear plane. We used the hanger for LOFT. But I think there's the potential for more than that!!

Great to see a balanced view on thorium. So much of it is overhyped.

Glad to see you're back!

Thank you for these videos. I've been binge-watching them and making notes. I had forgot how much I enjoyed physics back in the 90's. You've actually made me look for enrolling to some university courses just so I can learn more.